From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 24 22:08:54 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E182516A4CE; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:08:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from silver.he.iki.fi (helenius.fi [193.64.42.241]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BCDB43D2F; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:08:53 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from pete@he.iki.fi) Received: from [193.64.42.134] (h86.vuokselantie10.fi [193.64.42.134]) by silver.he.iki.fi (8.13.1/8.11.4) with ESMTP id j0OM8ofY091650; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:08:51 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from pete@he.iki.fi) Message-ID: <41F571F4.1090504@he.iki.fi> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:08:52 +0200 From: Petri Helenius User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nick Pavlica References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 5.3 I/O Performance / Linux 2.6.10 | Continued Discussion X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:08:55 -0000 Are you sure you aren't comparing filesystems with different mount options? Async comes to mind first. Pete Nick Pavlica wrote: >All, > I would like to start addressing some of the feedback that I have >been given. I started this discussion because I felt that it was >important to share the information I discovered in my testing. I also >want to reiterate my earlier statement that this is not an X vs. X >discussion, but an attempt to better understand the results, and >hopefully look at ways of improving the results I had with FreeBSD >5.x. I'm also looking forward to seeing the improvements to the 5.x >branch as it matures. I want to make it very clear that this is NOT A >"Religious/Engineering War", please don't try to turn it into one. > >That said, lets move on to something more productive. I installed >both operating systems using as many default options as possible and >updated them with all of the latest patches. I was logged in via SSH >from my workstation while running the tests. I didn't have X, running >on any of the installations because it wasn't need. CPU and RAM >utilization wasn't an issue during any of the tests, but the disk I/O >performance was dramatically different. Please keep in mind that I >ran these tests over and over to see if I had consistent results. I >even did the same tests on other pieces of equipment not listed in my >notes that yielded the same results time and time again. Some have >confirmed that they have had similar results in there testing using >other testing tools and methods. This makes me wounder why the gap is >so large, and how it can be improved? > >I think that it would be beneficial to have others in this group do >similar testing and post there results. This may help those that are >working on the OS itself to find trouble areas, and ways to improve >them. It may also help clarify many of the response questions because >you will be able to completely control the testing environment. I >look forward to seeing the testing results, and any good feedback that >helps identify specific tuning options, or bugs that need to be >addressed. > >Thanks! >--Nick Pavlica >--Laramie, WY >_______________________________________________ >freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list >http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance >To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > >